Hitchens: Humanism and abortion.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2008
- Q&A part III of the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA.
Full debate:
www.vimeo.com/1904911
Hitchens says here that religion only poisons the debate about abortion and that Humanist values help to decide difficult moral issues concerning the life of the unborn child.
"Your question ought to have been this." classic
He was killing frank the whole debate
He doesn’t realize Hitchens is pro life even after he explains it
Jazzkeyboardist1 he was right though
@Jazzkeyboardist1 You do know, that despite being in favor of it, Hitchens didn't actually send anyone to war right?
He was not a politician or a general... Such decisions didn't ultimately rely on his opinion or decisions. So why "Chrissy's war" ?
I think if you want someone to blame, let it be the people who actually have the authority to start the wars.
Besides, Hitchens is not a prophet... He's human e like all of us got things wrong sometimes. Though I would argue that it's certainly a lot easier for us to see the mistakes when looking back than when looking forward.
Do you feel power each time you write "Chrissy?"
@Jazzkeyboardist1 I think they're only annoyed that his name isn't Chrissy, and frankly it's a petty and stupid thing to do, even though you think it's some edgy, clever thing to do. It's just dumb and annoying, and pretty childish as it shows your immaturity and probably makes people disinterested in conversing with you. I guess. I will say it's funny that people glorify other people. Like everyone, "Chrissy" makes good points and bad points. I'm sure most people would agree with a few of the things Hitler said (although that's probably heretical to suggest), but can also disagree with much else.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 What the fuck. Hmmm.. I'm going to pass, thanks though.
He does answer the question. His answer is that all fetuses have a presumption of life that can be overridden by he mother's right to life. He sees this as balancing the moral rights of multiple humans. This is a valid difference.
So he's not quite Pro-Choice, is he? I guess we should hate him now (for participating in the *WAR AGAINST WOMEN*)...
*****
He is pro-choice though. "Overridden by a mother's right to life" Or in more accurate words, personal autonomy trumps potential viable human life.
Corpse Party He's pro-life, that's in a case of when the woman would die, not a birth control abortion, which nearly all are.
*****
It is not about mitigating guilt. It is about gaining legal footing. When the argument from opposition is that abortion is murdering a human life, one must argue against it. Now, factually an embryo or fetus is not a human life. It is potential human life, but the terminology is set by the standard in which the opposition proposes. Each sperm has a unique set of DNA, and mixing it with an egg outside of the womb does not exactly constitute a human life by most people's standard. The sad thing is, this is a place where people let their emotions and gut feelings get the best of them. Let us not also forget the religious angle of condemnation for anything sexual. So they make any excuse they can fathom fly against termination of potential life. Having said this, I personally find that sentience is the most important factor when determining human life. For example, when a person is brain dead they are declared legally dead though their heart beats on, and they are even a (somewhat though not entirely) viable body., More so than any fetus or embryo anyway.
*****
Ugh. I just went into detail about this very topic. smdh
I guess you must find it messed up that so many frozen humans exist in fertility banks.
It is so good that after a decade +, I can still watch Hitch. Brilliant human.
I'm glad you can see too.
Life is to horrible to close your eyes, watch the horror and be traumatized.
We got people who hear voices in their head and think it's okay to act out on them. That's terrifying *shudders* all it takes is 1 sentance of that voice in their head and people who dont believe in their delusions will be subjected to torture just to defend the voice in their head over the lives of actual existing people.
That's some grade A apacolypse type shit right here. Each day is a nightmare, another day that 1 of those folls can snap and then your life is in the hands of those delusional freaks who would do unspeakable things just because the voice in their head tells them it's okay to do so.
Why the fuck do we live in a horror universe? I want to live in the comedy universe or slife of life verse, anything beter then a freaking horror universe
I completely agree with Hitchens on this. I think abortion is unethical, but I don't think it should be illegal, just like I think cheating on a spouse is unethical, but shouldn't be illegal.
+amazinbud Of course it's considerably worse, but the point is that some things can be unethical to do, even though they are legal. What is the law, and what is the right thing to do, might not always overlap.
+amazinbud Right, killing a pack of cells lacking any sort of rational depth is worse than cheating on your wife/husband. Makes sense.
The difference is one of concrete consequences.
If you kill me right now, not only you kill someone who has memories, emotional depth, intellectual positions, ambitions and relationships, but you also unleash pain and suffering upon all my relatives. You could also add that you deprive society from someone who's actively contributing to it.
Kill a foetus, well, it probably isn't even aware of what's happening, it doesn't even realize that it, as an identity with counsciousness, is ended. Besides you don't cause any pain or suffering, as presumably the mother and father both wanted the abortion to occur. In fact, you AVOID pain and suffering, as parents who want to abort obviously expect to have their quality of life diminished if they don't.
Honestly, I even strongly agree with euthanasia at birth in case of birth defect, if that is the wish of the parents. Unfortunatly, as killing a born baby easily hurts our instinctive sensibility, it's unlikely it'll be legalized any time soon. Simple-minded people tend to base their moral compass on their primitive reactions rather than on rational thinking.
The foetus has nowhere the level of self-consciousness I possess. He/she/it isn't independant, it doesn't have its own opinions and sentiments regarding its own fate.
Your comparison is also nonsensical, as it is crazy to assume a mother has as much say on the fate of a baby that's still in her womb as does a complete stranger on my fate.
Also, you obviously didn't read my post as I said my death would have tremendous negative consequences, whereas the death of a foetus doesn't.
It's pretty ironic that you compare slavery to abortion when the comparison would rather work against you . Legalization and acceptance of abortion = social progress being repressed by conservative establishments all over the world. Oddly remniscient of the abolition of slavery, don't you think?
+amazinbud 1. lol @ banning abortion being a way to protect women... Tell that to the 11 year old girl in Paraguay being denied abortion after being raped by her stepfather. With modern medical knowledge and technology, risks when carrying out abortions are nearly non-existent. Women who have their pregnancy aborted are fully away that there are some (albeit extremely low) chances of risks, and choose to go through with their decision anyway as they know having a baby will have severe consequences on their life. And yes, conservatism, as the preservation of traditional values and structures, is very much the opponent of abortion rights. Most modern societies in the world allow abortion, whereas more conservative and religious countries tend to keep it illegal (or semi-illegal).
Your whole argument is based on the essentialistic notion that from the moment the sperm reaches the egg, an individual is created with inalienable rights. AND you say that we should somehow feel guilty for ''preventing'' the birth of someone unique who could have an amazing life. That is such utter idiocy that I won't bother rebuking it in detail. You might as well feel guilty for practicing abstinence or using contraception, as the person who could have been born from such acts could have been the next Mozart.
You pro-''life'' are not only deluded, you're an active cause of suffering in this world.
11 years later and Frank still doesn't know Hitchens was pro life
That's because Frank is pro death.
Hitchens is pro choice, logically pointing out that a woman's life and rights override that of an unborn potential fetus, but he would still consider the fetus a human and effort should be made to preserve it if possible., He would never stop a woman from having an abortion
@@OArchivesX He has admitted he's pro-life in other videos, UA-cam it
@@OArchivesX he said he’s active in the pro-life movement.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 he's not he think its unethical but he's against making it illegal, not everything that is legal is moral
For me, coming from the perspective of a humanist in the making, the question is simple but the answer much harder: When should the rights of the unborn supercede the rights of the mother? Put another way, at what point does pro-choice become pro-infanticide? As Hitchens mentioned, we're discovering the remarkable ability for mid-term babies to survive outside the womb. I think humanists and scientists need to have lengthy ethical discussions over the coming years, but the screaming voices of fundamentalist Christians and third-wave feminists threaten to drown out such discussion and endanger our ability to decide anything substantial or useful concerning the ethical dilemma of abortion.
I tend to go with what a male abortion doctor said. If males had babies, this wouldn't be an issue. There would be abortion clinics on every corner, there would never be a law against it, and that the waters have been muddied in order to control female sexuality. I think it's nobody else's business what goes on between a woman's thighs, but her own, anymore than what goes on between a man's.
I agree with you completely, but before you condemn the women screaming over this, please understand that even their right to obtain health care and abortion has been attacked for years by the radical right. It's simply not our fault that this issue exists in the first place. On top of fighting pregnancy, we've had to fight men who take their own rights for granted and assume we've been treated as fairly as they have.
Nerve perfectly stated
The rights of an unborn child should take precedence over a Mother's rights when the Mother decides to murder her child. Unless a Woman is raped or her life is on the line, there should be no reason to permit abortion from being legal. In most cases, abortions occur due to financial crisis, lack of sex education, family support, no commitment from the male partner. etc Poor excuses for murder.
colinfarrell33
Reason one, financial crisis. If you can not support a child with the money you have, and/or it would make you unable to support the family you already have.
Conclusion, in a cuntry were wellfare is non existend this is a good reason.
Reason two, lack of sex education. Often causes teenagers and young adults to become pregnant.
Possible from the age of 12 to 14. May cause financlial problem (see upper). Could potentioly ruin a teenagers live.
Reason three, lack of family support. Leads possibly to financial problems. Can cause brake down of Family bonds.
Often in religius housholds.
Note that those how are against abortion often also are against sex edducation and birth control messures.
How can anyone not understand such an eloquent and well spoken man such as Hitchens? He doesn't stutter, he makes clear arguments, yet they still misinterpret?
If they understood they wouldn't be religious, stands to reason.
@@carbon1255 yep, it's willful ignorance at best
That is what you learn when reading the bible so much.
Apologists.
Their brains are broken. They simply can't take in new information
I chuckled when Hitch uttered, "For Heaven's sake".
When ?
@@thelearner873 Just before the video ends
@@abhJOKA Thanks for telling
@@abhJOKA Thanks for telling.
said in the secularized meaning of the term
This is a perfect example of a secular case for pro-life. Very interesting of Christopher Hitchens.
Gabe Norman How is atheism dumb? Atheism is simply not convinced of an existence of a god or gods because there’s no reason and evidence for it
@Комиссар Yeah I agree. I have always blended science with religion here, the chances of the "big bang" and all the components to create Earth and eventually life, to the evolution of Humans are mathematically virtually nil. It would make much more sense if God helped the odds...
@Комиссар "is ridiculous" "it is mathematically impossible" I still personally think that just because you can't comprehend it that doesn't make it unreasonable. The problem here is that you can't fathom it. That's literally your argument. "no that just sound ridicilous" but it really doesn't. Time and gravity are the great creators of everything. It is physically explained.
Also, it is not by "pure chance" lol.. There are literally physics that explain why these things happened. To say it happened by "pure chance" is a fallacy of the highest order.
@@Teo_live Okay "mathematically virtually nil" I believe Richard Dawkins has a great counter-argument to this very thing, which is basically what every scientist worth their salt believes. Let's say the chances of life happening on any given planet, in any given solar system, is a billion billion. Do you realize how many solar systems there are? How many planets? You'd still be left off with like 100000000000 planets that could have this happen to them. The universe is incredibly large.
Also "the chance of the big bang" is literally not something you can write if you're thinking rationally. How can you judge what the chances of the big bang are? No one knows what were before the big bang, so to sit here and claim the chances of it are small is incredibly dishonest and intellectually disingenuous.
@@smoofoperator _"what every scientist worth their salt believes"_
According to who? i am *LITERALLY* studying to be a scientist (specialization in the exact same field as Dawkins atm) and I have never come across such indoctrination that every scientist must believe some arbitrary argument from Dawkins (that you don't even bother specifying).
Claiming the chances of the big bang leading to life on earth being small isn't "dishonest", it is simply fact. To claim that it is impossible for God to exist despite not knowing what happened before the big bang, or where the materials for it ever came from would be intellectually dishonest (and rather unscientific at that).
Комиссар summed up your logical fallacy quite well.
Also for the record, I fully agree with him at about 5:00 on - You really cannot make the case that contraception is immoral and should be illegal, since you are then attempting to relieve someone of an inalienable right (possession of their own body) without any actual counter-party who is having their rights violated (as there would be in the case of killing a human baby while it's still in the womb). i.e. no other human being is harmed by contraception, so it must be politically moral.
I love it when Hitch says things like “for heaven’s sake.”
Heavens sake is so part of our general vocabulary!
"It's casuistry". This man was a fine weaver of words.
Two words, specifically
@andrew gallovich what are you on about
The best
9
@@blair3264 don’t bite, mate. Obvious trolls are obvious. Even if I hated Hitchens, how can someone claim he wasn’t a thinker? For fucks sake.
I wish I discovered Hitchins much earlier in my life! Where were I?
I agree entirely!!! I've only just discovered him.
Exactly what I was thinking. Only discovered christopher recently.
@@marychadwick4727 Mary exactly what I was thinking
That saves you, guys, from another regret: not knowing what he woukd say about everything that’s going on in the world today. Enjoy all the youtube videos!!!!!
You were preparing for understanding his view. You met him when it was right to.
Had you met him earlier, you may not have appreciated him.
I'm confused. The interviewer asked Hitchens to defend his pro-abortion stance. Hittchens responds by explaining that he is effectively pro-life, then the interviewer criticizes Hitchens for not defending his pro-abortion stance.
That's like asking someone why they're a vegetarian, watch them eat a veal cutlet, then ask them again why they're a vegetarian.
Sadpants McGee yeah it also kind of annoyed me that the interviewer was being so condescending.
I was confused too. I read another comment that cleared it up for me. To sum it up, he said that Hitchens thought that abortion was unethical but should not be illegal like the same way that cheating on a partner is unethical but not illegal. He proceeds to say that this is an ethical issue and should not be a political one.
Under Washer he was pro choice in the sense that he though it should be legal
He basically said it is an evil but a necessary evil that was his basic stance
Answer: The interviewer is dumb and does dot comprehend what he just said.
He is not "effectively" pro-life. If someone said they weren't against others having guns but would never own one, then they would rightly be seen as pro-gun. It's only when it comes to abortion do people try to straddle the fence saying that there both which is ridiculous. Imagine someone saying they were politically pro-slavery and personally anti-slavery. They would be confused, yet this is how abortion is treated. He's "pro-choice", there is no inbetween. You either think a woman has a right to an abortion at some point or you think it should be illegal to kill your unborn children.
When exactly can an "AMEN!" be more appropriate? Well done Hitch.
Amen means “so be it” and has nothing to do with religion
I was surprised with Hitchens' position on this issue.. . I think he's trying to say that society should be accommodating enough, and accepting of, any unborn children that no one should have to resort to abortion . . . In other words, it should be within the scope of social welfare to provide for all candidate members of humanity
+Muhammad Shafiq very well stated
+EricPranks thanks. I don't see abortion as an issue of control of a woman over her body, as the argument is presented. When an individual lives in a society, and derives all kinds of benefits from it, the argument that "a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their body", is fallacious because each individual is connected to others.
+Muhammad Shafiq The problem is that "connectedness" is a vague and broad concept. We are also connected with children in africa in some way, but it would be draconian to charge someone criminally for buying clothes in a store where they employ slave African children. I can see feminist point here: they are just saying that, even if immoral, they have the legal right to chose that individualistic moral-code. Other wise we would have to press charges against someone that refuses to donate an organ. Feminist argument fail, though, when we talk about something more directed related to murder, as administrating poison or using a knife. If abortion falls under the last category (which seems likely) it is not a question of personal or moral choice anymore.
+Geraldo Azevedo Organ donation is different because only the will of a single individual is concerned. Abortion directly concerns two individuals.
You are right about connectedness, if we take it to its extremes. But I think that would be too much.
+Muhammad Shafiq Since when is a foetus an individual? Does it have a brain? Can it make rational choices? A woman, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of making rational choices, because a woman actually does have a brain. Anyone who is anti-abortion is anti-woman. Women are NOT factories for babies, and any woman who becomes pregnant is not automatically obligated to endure the pregnancy against her wishes. Consent is the keyword here.
I have never met you, but you are dearly missed Christopher. Dearly missed
Thank you Christopher for making the distinction clear for me.
As a Christian who was an atheist for most my life I have always really loved Christopher and think he is greatly missed. Some of my favourite advocates of secularism would be so unwelcome in today's " woke liberalism ". Sad that people like Steven Fry, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris , Bill Hicks, Bill Maher are/would be considered dangerous, hateful bigots on modern university campuses today which is a real shame.
I would love so much to hear Christopher's opinions on the " culture war" we find ourselves in in 2022.
"As a Christian who was an atheist for most my life" .... LOL. Enlightenment in reverse ....
@@worldcitizen9202 Brian Griffin 👍🏼 Cant wait to read your next book.
Wooooo! I go to VCU! Wish I had been old enough to know about Hitchens when he was alive and well. Could have gone to see him speak here...
and the award for most leading, convoluted question goes to...
Maybe the interviewer should try to understand that women are people.
I am lifelong atheist (from age 11 now 68 !) I have always said exactly what Christopher says,. but much less eloquently. I have four children. My wife had an abortion between the second and third child because it came too soon. There's an old wives' tale that a woman can't get pregnant while she is breast feeding ! We lived in France at the time and the termination was done at about six weeks. Following that we were both depressed for some months because they told her it was a girl and we wanted a girl . We got her in the end !
As Christopher said, with free and easy access to birth control abortion should be rarely necessary. I defend the right of women to control their reproductive cycle. If abortion is banned it will just be driven underground ,like prohibition and alcohol, thus risking the lives of women concerned.The Catholics like Muslims are against contraception so they create more adherents. It's so bloody obvious. I remember this quote regarding the southern US baptists' attitude to women, "keep them barefoot and pregnant" !!! What could be more disgusting ? At about seventeen I wrote an essay based on the idea that men are basically scared of women's sexuality .I got 99% and my English teacher became a good friend. dog is not great.
I agree that abortion will be driven underground after being made illegal, but why is that relevant? When *anything* is made illegal, people do it underground anyway. That's not an excuse to allow it.
***** Nothing you mentioned is as cruel as the genocide of millions of unborn children every year.
***** The mother will only endure as much cruelty that she puts herself in. She's responsible for her own actions.
***** Well what do you want me to say? _"Oh. I think what those women go through is harsh. So we should allow abortion (which is even _*_more_*_ harsh) to proceed._ There's no logic in that.
***** It happening anyway is not an argument. That's the case with *any* crime. Something is made illegal. People do it anyway. Those that are caught are punished for it.
"If the church says contraception and abortion are morally the same, it degrades the opposition to abortion."
What he means is that, if you say that preventing pregnancy is the same as terminating pregnancy, then terminating pregnancy becomes a more viable option. You are equivocating them both to the same end of "not having a baby."
Opposition to abortion should instead be coupled with support for contraception. Negating contraception means more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.
Very well put. It seems to me in a situation without compromise, this may be the closest we ever get
He was opposed to it. Look up f.e. his essay "Staking a Life" in Lapham's Quarterly, available online.
Thank you for your constructive and informative reply. That reply really gave me food for thought.
Wow, what compelling logic, i never doubted whether abortion was morally sound. I want to learn more about the science, embryology.
The reply should have been in the form of a question, "why are you worshiping a god that kills people".
I don't care about Hitchens views on abortion in this debate. He is not on trial. The fact that we're arguing over a murderous god in the first place is insane.
+Josiah Kloster That's ignorant to say. Yes we killed the Nazi's. But did we go and kill all their children, rape their women, and kill all of their livestock?! No, only your God would tell us to do that. Don't compare modern day people with the fake stories from the Bible. It didn't even happen. If you can't see how horrible your god is, then there is no hope for you. There are much better gods being worshiped than yours. But you didn't pick your God, you happened to be born in an area in the world that worships this god, and your parents just happen to be worshiping this god. Otherwise you'd see this from an outside perspective. I've taken advanced Christian theology, it opened my eyes. You should do the same.
I bet I'm right when I say you don't read your bible. You only listen to what your preacher wants to teach you. At most, you just read the fun frilly parts of the bible. And forget to read the other 99% of it. Otherwise you'd see all the BS in there. I'll bet $100 I'm right. I know I'm right.
StephenHMarco as a German that not what my gramma told me
I was surprised to hear Hitchens express anti-abortion views, but once he backed them up with some degree of scientific reference and a humanist view of the unborn, even though I disagree with his interpretation, I could see where he was coming from. I could also see how frustrating it was for Mr. Turek when Hitch refused to be painted into a corner by the twisted oversimplification of his words. Nice try, Turek.
*Pro-Life* is *Pro-Science*
I think we have the same take on Hitchens. Correct me if I am wrong. I disagree with Htichens on quite a lot. The exceptions are abortion, Israel, and the War on Terror. However, unlike Turek (who probably votes more similar to me), I always found he argues in good faith. He also, gave reasonable answer that, before I heard Hitchens, I did not think athiests had a good answer to . I wish he were still alive. I have a bunch of questions for him. I am facinated by the way he thinks,
Mark Stuber Given the opportunity, I think you'd find atheists in general tend to be articulate, intelligent individuals who, more often than not, cite observable, testable, corroborated facts (science, history, etc.) as the basis for their opinions. Hitchens was a wonderful (if not always respectful) example this. Others to check out are Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Penn Gillette (yes, the magician).
OmniphonProductions re "Given the opportunity"
As if there is no opportunity? How absurd. I've talked to atheists my entire life. Of course you would have no way of knowing that.
However, you do know I have access to youtube. You haven't noticed how many atheists post video of their favorite atheists advocating their belief system?
I suppose I better read the rest of your post to make sure, I did not take this seeming non-sensical statement out of context.
Nope, I read the rest of the post and it was not taking out of context.
By the way, I have heard of the rest of the one's you listed. What makes you think it was more likely I haven’t than have?
Regarding Hitchens being disrespectful. I don't find him disrespectful at all. I've found Richard Dawkins much less respectful than Hitchens. I like that Hitchens will demonstrate why a logical fallacy or worse deliberate demagoguery is flawed. That does mot make him disrespectful.
Mark Stuber Please, allow me to clarify my statement. There's a difference between HAVING the opportunity and TAKING the opportunity. Obviously the internet offers access to countless atheist videos and lectures, but in my experience, most people on UA-cam simply "Like" what matches their preconceptions and either ignore or bash that which doesn't. Added to the fact that, as you say, I have no way of knowing how many atheists you've known, I erroneously jumped to the conclusion that your exposure was limited. Mea culpa.
As for Hitchens' and Dawkins' levels of disrespect, perhaps a better word would have been, "tact." Unlike most, Hitchens doesn't sugar coat his opinions in the name of civility. He calls people, "Idiots," to their faces. Conversely, Dawkins at least tries to be polite. Of course, both of these observations vary from video to video.
I think another big difference is that Hitchens, a journalist, presents examples of historically destructive hypocrisy and demagoguery, which most people agree (A) happened and (B) shouldn't have. On the other hand, Dawkins, a biologist, tends to primarily address scientific facts, which despite being relatively sterile and far less subjective, tend to inflame the emotions of those whose faith is contradicted. Thus, when Hitchens says, "Religion is wrong," people agree with WHY he says it, but when Dawkins says, "Religion is wrong," people are offended.
Anyway, regarding my reply to your initial comment, I sincerely apologize if I inadvertently offended you. I certainly didn't mean to minimize your intellect. If anything, your willingness to consider alternative perspectives makes you MORE worthy of respect than most UA-cam commenters.
Thank you for clarifying - glad we're on the same page there.
A brilliant man cut down far too soon. I never tire of listening to his thoughtful and enlightened considerations!
"The presumption is that the unborn entity has a right on it's side and that every effort should be made to see if it can be preserved. I think that's an ethical imperative." Humanist Christopher Hitchens was not pro-choice.
that right but he also says that the woman’s choice comes first in that case, just that we should think about this and consider that the embryo/fetus has rights too
that right
I mean but he also said as the guy above me said that the mother comes first
That’s a pro choice argument
Liam Quigley exactly I often find the dishonest argument that pro choice people want to kill babies when in reality it is just that they aren’t going to impose themselves on someone else like Hitchens
He's "pro-choice" which is a pro-abortion stance. If he thinks a person should be able to choose to have an abortion _in spite of those supposed "rights" he claims the unborn have,_ then that is pro-abortion. You can't really claim the unborn have rights if they can be taken away without due process.
I, personally, would prefer a woman to carry my child to term if I accidentally knocked her up, if she can. Meaning if it was solely my decision, since I don't have any kids yet, want to be a father, and various other personal/familial/selfish reasons, she wouldn't get an abortion.
But I'm still pro choice. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I applaud Hitchens here. I live in Ireland and during the abortion referendum in 2018, I noticed there was little to no debate. Any attempt at a reasonable debate was shut down by people thinking you only want a debate is because you're a bigoted religious prick. This really wasn't helped by all of the radicals (a small but loud minority) doing things specifically to target people. I'm Atheist and although I'm not completely against abortion, I do want more public debate on the manner of which it should be implemented.
But after all of that the question that needed to be asked was “How long in to a pregnancy is it morally and ethically ok to abort?”
I just love this man so much
I don't get it. Why can't people just respect the decision of the person(s) that is/are getting an abortion? It's their life, let them make their own decisions; it's got nothing to do with the people complaining.
I feel the same way when people ask me why I keep slaves. Mind your own business, it's MY mistake to make. The people complaining aren't affected by it
You could say the same about the parent of a toddler: it's their life(the parent) so why not let them make their own decision?
Society has a responsibility to care for the rights of the defenceless and that includes the unborn.
Well said man, everytime i drink a whole bottle of jack and i go out for a joy ride, i end up telling myself the same thing "It's my life, let me make my own decisions."
Because we don't think it should just be up to the women if the potential human lives or dies, that's a question for society not for a women.
You don't own life, not even your child's.
Hitchens clearly tried to go around the question. He probably had not fully figured out where he stands on this. It is one of the hardest questions there is, because it forces you to figure out underlying moral issues that hardly anyone ever asks. Nobody I have ever talked to, from either side, has ever employed a consistent morality on answering this question and, even though I think I have figured it out for myself, a lot of people think my view is not good enough. Perhaps this is an issue that cannot not have a definitive answer.
DarKMaTTeR The answer is simple: Abortion is a simple issue of the right to body autonomy. The woman's right to dictate how and when her body is used overrides the fetus' right to make use of her body to maintain its life. It's the same right that disallows people to demand that you donate organs on legal terms. God commanding genocide violates a human's right to independent life, and is inherently immoral as it violates that same body autonomy. It's a fallacy of equivocation.
Teth47 The more absolute and "simple" an answer a person offers, the less he or she has thought about the issue.
For example, babies continue to be fully dependent after they are born. Some elderly and cripples are also fully dependent. Does this dependency produce a right for the caregiver to euthanize them? They could give them away, but what if nobody will take them? Nobody has to take them.
The common answer to this is that you have to keep them until you find someone else. In the case of pregnancy, that would mean you have to carry the fetus until the earliest moment that it can be transfered to a mechanical womb.
The argument that fetuses have full rights, but abortion is moral because the fetus trespasses on the mother's rights, does not employ consistent morality.
DarKMaTTeR Incorrect. Carrying a fetus to term confers responsibility to maintain its life, it's not a body autonomy issue at that point, neither is the issue of caring for the elderly. Body autonomy does not extend to actions between humans, it stops at the point where one no longer needs to make use of another's body to survive, and I mean that directly. If you have to feed your baby, the baby isn't making use of your body to survive, it is making use of what you provide to survive. Body autonomy is clearly defined, and it does not include the right to negligence. That's a false equivocation.
Teth47 You call this a false equivocation. For me it is clearly the other way around: an arbitrary distinction, that you designed and introduced specifically to separate two cases that are in essence the same. I just don't see how the means by which you provide care matter, so that in one case you are obliged to give care, and in another you can euthanize at will. Can you offer a different issue where such a distinction is relevant?
DarKMaTTeR What you believe is irrelevant... The facts are all there, your belief does not change them.
As for an example, we can just use the same one, a fetus and a baby. The fetus requires YOUR body, and can directly cause you harm, it leeches resources from your body directly and there is no other way for it to survive. After the baby has been born, it is classified as a human, it is capable of surviving without your body, but since you gave birth to it, there is a societal obligation to care for it as it has the right to life, and you are not allowed to neglect that right in favor of your own rights. The reason this is not true of a fetus is the same reason a person can't take one of your kidneys, even if it will save their life. You do not have the right to take that person's life directly, however, they also do not have the right to any part of your body. Likewise, you cannot kill your baby, but you can deny it the use of your body, even if the end result is the fetus' death. The reason we kill it during abortion is to lessen any potential suffering the fetus may undergo as a result of the abortion. We could just as easily sever the placenta from the mother and let the fetus die slowly in the womb, but I imagine you would object to that more than getting it over with quickly.
TL;DR A fetus can't use your body without your consent, even if retracting that consent kills it, but you're not allowed to directly take its life, nor can you neglect its care after it is born, that does not require use of your body for survival in this context.
do you mind if i borrow this? it concisely explains alot that i try to explain to people.
The important point that equating contraception to abortion reduces the moral moral significance of the procedure. If it is no better than contraception, abortion is a trivial surgical procedure. Worse, the RCC refuses to support acting in a way that reduces the necessity of abortion. We must be firm on this point.
Love the irony of how his final sentence includes the phrase 'for heaven's sake!' #GoHitch
Hitchens' views on abortion were often at odds with fellow humanists.He understands the naturalistic argument.
I imagine many village atheists would be surprised that he was pro life.
Hitchens remains my favorite among the new atheists. His spirit was more noble than his creed.
I have never met someone who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are not the same thing. I am adamantly pro-choice, but I am also anti abortion. I personally think abortion is wrong and in any case should be a very last resort. However, I also believe strongly that it is not my place to decide for a woman what she should do with her own body. I don’t have to live with the consequences either way, but she does.
@@MikaelLewisify Well I agree that we shouldn't have a say in her body. But a fetus isn't her body you can't have two blood types. And i think that it should only be allowed if the mother will die or if it is an extreme disability.
Mikael Lewis the rights of a child should always come before the rights of the parent, and why can’t you tell a woman, or a man, what they should do with their own body if what they’re doing is taking another life
Interesting to see the only time hitch finds it hard to speak in torrents - this feels like a truly difficult moral ethical quandary for him (I also have read much of his writing)... I love this, means he cares and is thinking, as an atheist I find his speech about the hard decisions of abortion is only out of real consideration and reason, rather than picking a side and yelling at the other. This is difficult scientifically and he's being very honest...
He made me as and atheist realise the importance of the other argument - which you should know to debate... It's not completely wrong or invalid
Rock on Hitch x
Mr Hitchens was so far the intellectual superior in this debate that it kind of renders this down to a mere point of interest. I only discovered him yesterday - hard as that may be to believe. Can anyone point me to a debate where he’s actually given a run for his money? Would really like to see him answering questions under pressure rather than in his comfort zone! Curiosity to see a ridiculously smart man challenged is my motivation!
I've watched many UA-cam videos of him debating and I don't think he has ever been put in his place by anyone. You have a lot of terrific Hitch videos yet to watch if you discovered him yesterday. Enjoy!
I don’t think he ever answered questions under pressure, this was from a time when people could have calm discussions and thoughtful debates without losing their minds.
Anyone who thinks the universe has them in mind is a fool, I had an imaginary friend when I was young ... but I on the other hand, grew up.
Yeah well, I am part of the universe therefor without assuming or implying I can tell you I am that universe in part. I definitely want to survive and am part of that universe, a part that cares.
Its simple, the universe doesn't have you in mind, God does. God does not equal "universe". That is pantheism.
Grew up to what, an unthinking dumbass?!!?
typical replies - if you don't agree with me you are wrong. Childish beliefs should be left behind, like diapers, when they no longer serve a purpose.
Jim Gallagher - you appear to be the unthinking one here.
ffp08 :into a total asshole no doubt.
I'm a Hitchens fan, but I think he cleverly avoided answering the question. Turek would have done better if he asked Hitchens to answer the second part of the question.
It was a loaded bullshit question. Abortion is not a black and white issue, there's a lot of grey area and Hitchens was honest enough with everyone to express that. Yes he acknowledged that a fetus is a life, but at the same time he wasn't against abortion as every person has the right to choose and sometimes nature will do it for them.
S Baldrick Hitchens acknowledged that the fetus later in pregnancy is _a person_ (a definite pro-choice no-no). Because of that, he also said that at some point during pregnancy, the "choice" should no longer be just the pregnant woman's choice. Some would call that _anti-choice_ (A TOTAL PRO-CHOICE NO-NO). Funny how people remember things the way they want to remember them, instead of how they actually went down. Listen to the video again, and you'll see.....
*****
Abortion in the 2nd half of the pregnancy is illegal anyways, so I don't know what you're trying to get at here?
No, you just don't understand his response, just like Turek.
dontchastop exactly
Is this a debate or an interrogation?
I don't understand how he says that "every effort should be made to see if it (the fetus) should be preserved" yet is okay with abortion if contraception fails.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how to reconcile this?
Reductio ad absurdum: the last refuge of the inarticulate.
What I like the most about abortion discussions is that everyone rushes to signal their virtue by "let's save that life" - but, once the life has saved, NOBODY ever dares to stick around and actually make that life worthwhile. Which, averagely speaking, doesn't happen by itself: abortions are not for fun, but because parents don't feel like they can take proper care of that kid.
You never feel like that, but it is sure as hell better than taking the babies life.
This argument doesn't end. Say at 3 months old and the husband loses their job and the wife gets hit by a car and gets brain damage. They don't feel like they can properly take care of the child.
Do they take the child out behind the shed???? you can still give up a child after birth without murdering it.
I agree. I am staunchly on the side of avoiding and/or relieving suffering. Every child needs to be welcomed and cared for by his or her parents
When the two can be separated there is no question that society must take responsibility instead of hurting what is low a sentient person. But an embryo obviously does not suffer as much being removed from the womb as a woman or girl endures in gestating and giving birth to it. Her experience trumps any possible (and quite frankly unlikely) experience of that embryo.
@@candicefrost4561 Yes it does. That person which is aborted does not get to live their life. They missed out on 100 years of life while gestation is 9 months.
We all know that you believe missing out on your yet to be had experiences is suffering, otherwise you would have left this existence in a painless way. So clearly you want to live more of your life.
And what of a woman who gets raped and made pregnant against her will? It is immoral to abort that? When every time she looked at it she was reminded?
There's no black and white, there are always shades of grey and saying abortion is immoral is a far to short sited blanket statement
I would have liked to hear hithens defend the point in his book where he apparently says that abortion is okay if contraception fails. That stance seems to contradict what he otherwise says.
Note, Hitchens is pointing out tubal pregnancies, which are pregnancies where the fetus forms in the fallopian tubes rather than within the womb. Tubal pregnancies cannot be viable, the fetus will die in a tubal pregnancy 99.99% of the time, and in the majority of cases will cause damage to the internal organs of the woman who suffers from them, frequently resulting in internal bleeding and death. I suspect many anti-Abortionists are unaware that this form of pregnancy exists and is in fact extremely common, as many anti-Abortion laws that are proposed ban all forms of Abortion, even in cases of tubal pregnancies, rape or incest and make no exceptions for them.
He's making his point but his opponents are incapable of understanding it because they don't realize that this form of pregnancy exists. A tubal pregnancy will almost never result in a viable fetus that can be carried to term, the fetus will almost always die in the process of the pregnancy and will many times take the mother with it, or even if the mother survives will cause massive harm to her. The idea that anyone can propose that, that is acceptable and that women who seek to have abortions for those sorts of pregnancies should be prosecuted is barbaric.
I miss Hitchens so much. We need him today. On abortion; both extremes consider a fertilised egg to be equal to a fully formed baby. The extreme anti abortionists think a fertilised egg should have full human rights while the extreme pro abortionists think that fully formed babies should be aborted with no rights. I think both are wrong. Abortion in the first couple of months isn't the same as an abortion of a fully viable foetus who can live independently of the mother. We should respect foetal life as it grows and develops and it should gain rights as it becomes viable.
You state that, in the first couple of months, a fetus deserves fewer human rights. Why? They develop a beating heart, a neural plate, functioning nerves, and many other organs within the first couple of months! You should reconsider your opinion with these facts in mind.
@Jack Probert I wouldn't claim a clump of heart cells is a human being, but an unborn child in the womb at every stage (at no point merely a clump of one kind of cell) is always a human being (with personhood, that is).
@Jack Probert Why do brain and nervous system define personhood? That's quite arbitrary. Why not beating heart? Why not fingerprint? Why not unique sequence of DNA? Why not viability? Why is your choice of criteria for when an organism gains personhood better than any of these other choices?
(FYI, the fetus develops a nervous system in the first trimester, so to be logically consistent you'd have to say almost all abortions are actually unethical.)
@Jack Probert Pro-lifers are trying to make capital? Give me a break. It's the other way around. Abortion providers make lots of money doing with abortions. Abortion clinics typically do NOT discuss alternatives, risks, benefits, etc. or even show ultrasounds because they want to rush to get to the abortion (for money). More than a third of Planned Parenthood's revenue comes from abortions while each other service they provide constitutes a significantly smaller percentage.
Also, you keep bringing up religion. I have not brought up religion at all. You're the one who keeps obsessing over it. My arguments against abortion do not appeal to faith or theology AT ALL. So why do you keep bringing it up if my argument has nothing to do with it?
As for determining personhood, you still have not provided an argument. You simply say the nervous system defines personhood over and over. What is your reason? What about that component of the body and not another one is unique and can determine personhood?
Finally, I hope you realize what I said earlier, which is that the fetus has an actively functioning and developing nervous system in the first trimester. In fact, to be more specific, the average time a woman receives results from a pregnancy test to know she's pregnant in the first place (app. 3 weeks) is when the brain stem starts to form, and a few weeks later the baby can already feel pain. By the time she gets to the abortion clinic, the baby already has not only a developing nervous system, not only a functioning nervous system, but also the ability to feel the abortion as it takes place. To be consistent, you'd have to condemn almost every abortion that takes place (i.e., 3 weeks gestation or later).
@Jack Probert Well, if you consider the brain so important, then you should be a pro-life advocate condemning all abortions from weeks 3-40 of gestation, which is almost all abortions. But your definition is still arbitrary, and some of your reasons can be applied to other things. For example, what determines "our personality, ability to form relationships," etc., as you say, actually stems from our identity and blueprint of our entire bodily development. What is this blueprint I speak of? DNA. And this is present not from week 3, not even from week 1, but from DAY ONE, i.e. conception. Life starts at conception. It does not start a few weeks later with the brain stem, nor a few weeks later with functioning nerves, nor a few years later with full consciousness. It starts at day 1, conception. At this point, the human has unique identity (DNA unique from anyone else on the planet) that determines the future development and growth of that person for years to come. Also, you expressed opposition to "any procedure that causes pain, distress or damage if it can be avoided." Then condemn abortion. Go ahead. There is plenty of new research indicating that 7-week fetuses feel pain. (Some studies show 4 or 5 weeks. Others show 7 or 8. It's not 100% settled, but the majority of the analyses I've read revolve around 7 weeks.)
Furthermore, you act as though abortions are regularly performed to save the life of the mother. I hope you know that takes place in less than 1% of abortions. Almost all abortions have nothing to do with that. You seem to be pro-life in 99% of cases, including level of fetal development as well as justification for having an abortion. So please admit it.
Finally, you are completely wrong in assuming people's motivations in saying that "most normal people do not get this involved in situations which are not their personal business." Really? Then why do people care about human rights issues at all? Do only Palestinians talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do only black people talk about anti-black racism? Do only women talk about misogyny? Do only Jews talk about the Holocaust? The list goes on and on. You must be joking. Obviously people are passionate about issues that don't directly affect them; they're simply recognizing basic human rights and defending them against human rights violations like abortion. The pro-life movement at its core can be professed and advocated by non-religious people extremely easily. All they need to do is recognize basic human rights, science, and some logical reasoning.
Until near the end of the second trimester, when the neural connections are developed that allow for consciousness, there is no person. So I reject the starting point here, that a fetus is a human being.
Scientifically it is. The mass cluster of cells is living and is categorized biologically as Hominina. A zygote, fetus, mass cluster of cells or whatever anyone prefers to call it - it is a living human being. Not fully developed obviously but definitely alive and definitely human.
His presentation was profound. By making the very clear argument that any religious perspective be 'kicked into the long grass', he then asserts that society (with no religious intervention what so ever) needs to decide on what stance to take - if we accept (as he states) that the embryo is a human, then how do we debate the necessary moral structure for abortion - or otherwise relating to the Mother, and the circumstances. This is surely a more constructive ground for debate and social consensus than those surrounding religious doctrine on abortion, contraception, and 'other activities'.
Tacocat: I think that his point is that religion interferes with a proper humanitarian debate, and he presents his defence of the unborn child. His argument is that ‘religions’ aim is to indoctrinate, and to do without consideration of the unborn child,. He suggests that religions’ interests are primarily interested in their own power structures. By removing a question of ‘religion’ and focusing on a humanitarian approach, the interest of the foetus is primary, and not the doctrine of a religion. I think you should find that perspective quite close to yours.
Taco Cat: Hmm you are basing your argument on the idea that religion is the only (or perhaps 'principle') way to discuss moral / ethics. I think Hitch and you would both be in agreement with respect to the rights of the unborn child. He would profoundly disagree that Religions (any of them) provide a decent basis for that dialogue - that is the point of this particular video, and a number of his other presentations and writings. In summary, you and he agree on the principle issue, but have a different perspective on how that should be achieved. Isn't life a rich and varied place?
Also Christopher Hitchens, well after this debate and more directly addressing the question of abortion:
"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine-religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works-works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has."
Wasn't that was more of an argument for contraception?
I think Christopher is pretty much spot on with this, but I am a catholic, and I think he talked about a few views that misrepresent the catholic church. The catholic church does not think contraceptives are as morally wrong as abortions, but they are wrong in that they remove the procreative aspect from intercourse with the intention of procuring selfish pleasures. Of course humanists wouldn't see this as a bad thing, but pleasure is not the end goal of humanity and often seeking pleasure for its own sake leads to unhappiness.
I don't understand how someone apparently so reasonable can think the Catholic Church has Christianity right. To quote Jesus:
Luke 14:33
"Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."
Matthew 19:21-24
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Hebrews 13:5
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have"
Matthew 6:24
"You cannot serve God and riches."
Matthew 19:24
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Luke 14:34
"Build a palace in the name of Saint Peter and let it be adorned with treasures. Collect great wealth, in my name, for this shall be rewarded in heaven."
I made that last one up.
redo348 Look at what the current pope is calling for, he is all in favour of a 'poor church' in his own words. I don't think you can call the treasures of the church the possessions of its priests and bishops; they are just the caretakers who have inherited all this priceless art etc. and as such they don't love it for its own sake.
If you want a more enlightened reply www[dot]askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2009_09SEPT/2009SeptWhyNotGiveItAllToThePoor.cfm
If the pope is calling for a poor church, then maybe he should move out of his palace. Is this how Jesus would live? Is this not a total contradiction of one of Jesus's key messages?
***** I see sexual love as giving yourself totally to the other person, if you are using contraception you are in a sense holding something back. I don't think sex is comparable to just any other simple pleasure in life, and to say so seems to devalue human love and relationships. Sin is not some one-way ticket to damnation, its just a kind of dissonance between your own will and God's, He certainly doesn't expect people to be perfect and honestly, contraception is such a minor issue, its largely established as wrong simply because it is so closely related to promiscuity and a lack of commitment.
***** Not at all, I just don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. It seems to deny the main purpose of sex. For me there is no greater expression of love than that of procreation; it is a self sacrifice in a way since clearly having kids is not always desirable. Its only my personal opinion, and I am not about to condemn anyone with views contrary to it.
Everything Hitchens says is straight to the point, articulate and encapsulates the moral truth. He is possibly the best orator I have ever seen!
He debates brilluantly but that diesn't make him correct .
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone dodge around saying that they are pro life as much as hitchens did in this clip. He could’ve just said he was pro-life and then elaborate instead of trying to disagree for the sake of it.
Nice summation. That's what I gather from it as well.
"I had an abortion just so I could see what it felt like to kill a baby" - Doug Stanhope comedian. Hitchens is far to diplomatic.
Glad to see Hitchens can recognize a fetus as a person. Go to a Pro Choice website and this automatically make Woman hater.
He recognizes a fetus as a "candidate for society", a candidate to be a future person. This is describing a potential, not the literal statement that a fetus is a person. They're different, and that difference is the dilemma of this argument. For instance, if you also choose Hitchens' stance, you have to decide a point where the rights of the fetus equal or supersede the pre-existing autonomy and rights of the mother. Its not a clean division. I would say if you aren't conflicted by this statement then yes, you would possibly be a woman hater (or neglector of their autonomy). But I can see the humor in your statement, being against abortion isn't necessarily anti-woman.
Benjamin Mairs exactly he wasn’t really pro life as this comment says
@@keyan1219 "and thus cannot be for just the woman to decide upon it." Hitches didn't say a candidate for a person, he said candidate for society and it's not up to the woman's choice, aka not woman's choice to kill the baby.
shilohwillcome he said woman’s choices comes higher than the fetuses
@@keyan1219 lol no he didn't
Does anyone know if Hitchens' claim of Aquinas is true and has a source? From what I've read Aquinas believed in delayed conception.
Truth is not just a cold-hearted fact without any emotions...
The value of emotions, brought into life, the value of moral intelligence...
By dispensing the feelings of every being known to exist, one is being utterly deceptive of what the highest truth constitutes about...
All is tool, around the truth of other feelings... Everything else should worship the alleviation of suffering.
This is the first time I've ever seen Christopher Hitchens dodge a question. Unsurprising given the subject and it's complexities, but surprising because it's so rare for him to dodge a question of consequence.
It doesn't seem dodged to me at all. The question is simply malformed or based off a false premise - Hitchens doesn't say that all failed pregnancies are god's fault or anything like that, and he doesn't say that we have the unqualified right to abort children (or "play god" as Frank Turek put it).
It's like asking a person who eats meat why they're a vegetarian. The answer is to tell them why the question is wrong.
@@misterlich2826 I won't defend Turek's ability to deliver a question or characterize Hitchens' own thoughts particularly well. However, I thought Turek was asking, in a roundabout way, a very clear question which Hitchens never really fully answered.
Turek's question was simple: If you believe that an unborn child is a human life, then is abortion a moral evil? If it's not a moral evil, why are the moral evils in the bible which you are so fond of denouncing worse or moral evils at all?
Hitchens' answer: I do believe that an unborn child is a human life, and science is coming closer and closer to confirming this. Now, here are all the ways that religion gets this and other questions wrong.
Notice the lack of actual, if not perhaps implied, condemnation of abortion, which seemed to be Turek's goal in asking these questions in the first place.
You may have a point though. It's not so much a dodge as an unwillingness to answer a difficult and controversial question poorly asked. However, one of the reasons I love Hitchens is his willingness to answer tough questions, even if his answers are unpopular. This is not the only time or place where Hitchens equivocates on the question of abortion. I can't blame him, I do the same thing, but then I'm not Christopher Hitchens.
@@Andy7050 I don’t think Hitchens dodged. I think his position got somewhat obscured (or maybe sidetracked) by two things: first, his need to clarify again and again the distinction between ‘God willed’ and ‘nature willed’; and second, his condemnation of the Catholic position, that ending the life is the same thing as preventing a life. My sense is that he would have gone on to argue that abortion might be morally permissible in certain cases even if the unborn baby does count as a living being (e.g., health of the mother). But you’re right, he didn’t get there.
If Turek was actually listening, he would have picked up on Hitchens’s pro-life leanings and asked a followup question. But Turek was too busy trying (and really failing) to trip Hitchens up in a gotcha.
@@ER1CwC That is the issue with Hitchens - he doesn't actually answer the question, but devolves into "but catholics", or another topic. You begin to notice it's a pattern as you listen more of his interviews.
Here, I must disagree with Hitchens. Biologically speaking, the fetus (early on in pregnancy when most abortions are preformed) has no sentience and are a bundle of cells less "alive" than an insect. There can be no cruelty unless there is a victim, which there isn't in the case of abortion because the fetus never develops a human consciousness or a capacity to feel pain.
Additionally, to view the fetus as a candidate member of society is to ignore the fact that the society which the fetus would grow to be a part of would more likely suffer from the fetus coming into fruition as a human being. Say, the mother decides to give up the child for adoption. Then, it is lucky enough to get adopted. That takes away a home from another child who will grow up without a family and not be adopted as a result. If the child grows up and isn't placed for adoption, then society likely either misses the productivity of the mother (or perhaps father, depending on the situation) being in the work force to the same extent as she would be or it is forced to spend it's resources on a child who will probably psychologically suffer from feeling unwanted.
Abortion, thus, is an act of mercy for the mother, the fetus, and society at large.
I don't agree with your logic
Such a nihilist
Well thought out argument
The main problem with the so-called biological view or argument is that there is no clear line anyone can really draw between what can be considered "human life" or not. It's difficult to view the early developmental stages of a fetus as being a "human life" (understandably so) for some people, especially for those who don't wish for a child. It is also, however, unfair to insinuate that it is wholly irrational to be opposed to the abortion, because pro-lifers genuinely value the fetus at all stages as being "human life". At the end of the day, how you view the different stages of a fetus' development is almost entirely arbitrary, but again, not unfairly so. Hitchen has made his position clear here, in that he values the fetus as an "unborn child", but maintains that women/mothers can make the decision to terminate pregnancies.
But aren't there late term abortions where they crush the brain?
Wow. I'll admit I really didn't expect him to say a lot of what he said. It's good to see that there are at least some humanists that consider embyros as living children though.
An embryo doesn't have a brain.
It can't be a person.
Even if it is, it doesn't have rights that supersede the rights of the person carrying it.
To argue that it does is to argue for slavery through one's reproductive organs.
Trying honestly to take in various viewpoints expressed by both Hitchens will lead to a better understanding of the black and white viewpoints of the world.
Mr. Christopher Hitchens brilliant, as usual in his answers.
Personally, I think it should go by brain function, not viability. My parlor palm can breath, so what.
When you say brain function, do you mean the fetus having basic cognitive centers developed? or more specifically the potential to develop them (using modern medicine that would allow the unborn baby to survive outside the mother) to be approximately equal to that of a child born in a regular 9 month pregnancy? examples might include memory, attention, perception etc. I find you bring up an important point because abortion debates define life in a fairly categorical manner. Life and development are clearly gradual and I feel cognitive markers might be the best compromise between the radical feminist view (kill fetuses for fun and empowerment) and religious dogma(that conception equals life), in order to create a fair societal intrusion into the issue of pregnancy and abortion.
Kaiser Schwarz
Developed and functional. At least enough to say it's thinking and/or feeling. I don't care about potential. If you want to talk potential we can go back to conception crap. You know, I've never heard anyone speak in favor of recreational abortions. The only time I ever hear about it is when someone brings it up to condemn it. If anyone actually does it, I'd give good odds that they are not psychologically sound.
My thoughts exactly. If you're brain-dead after suffering head trauma, you're legally and medically considered dead. Pulling the plug isn't murder. And yet, if we pull the plug on something that doesn't even have a physical brain yet (embryo), or a minimally functional one (fetus), many of the same people agreeing with the first statement, will call abortion murder. There is an obvious double standard.
I personally don't consider something to be alive (in an animal sense, rather than an organic sense) unless it's sentient and conscious. If it cannot think or feel, and it is not aware, then it's not alive.
As an aside, no pro-choice person I know likes abortion, myself included. As you said, it is only ever condemned by other pro-choicers unless it was absolutely necessary or if it was the responsible thing to do.
Two things: (1) if abortion isn't immoral, why should it be constrained by any factor, and (2) if your friend is in a coma and the doctor tells you he will wake up in two months, would it be immoral in that case to "pull the plug"
j tucker 1)Reason.
2)Yes.
The answer will be determined objectively once we know when consciousness is formed. We do know that the neural plate is developed at week 2. So until we understand consciousness better I think the woman has 2 weeks to terminate the pregnancy. But the only direction this number can go is up.
Q. If 1 being is deciding the lives and deaths of other "lesser" life-forms are they really moral and ethical?
A. No, for the life-form in question they should be the one to gouvern themselves so long as they dont trample on the wills and lives of others
the issue with this debate in particular is ta Turek is working in the realm of logical fallacies. he's outlining arguments that he claims Hitchens made...when in fact hitchens did not make those claims...this is a strawman argument. when Hitchens corrects him, Turek claims that Hitchens failed to answer his question. how can honest conversation take place if one side is being intellectually dishonest?
for example, if i were to say 'Turek, why do you think that it's morally acceptable for people to kill homosexuals?' .....Turek would, obviously, respond with a 'i never claimed that it was morally acceptable or even that god did that in the first place'......now, if i were to respond 'well, you didnt answer my question. i asked why you feel i's morally acceptable for people to kill homosexuals? you promote the bible, the bible clearly states that homosexuals should be killed..why do you think it's moral to kill homosexuals?'......the issue in this analogy is that im not actually arguing Turek's point. im arguing with a point made in the bible and im not actually considering what Turek thinks about it. instead, im demanding he defend the belief, whether he holds it or not, then claiming he is 'wrong about his position' when he fails to answer my question. it's clear that in this case, im being intellectually dishonest and if that were really the tactic i were to take, i should be ashamed.
....this is, however, the exact route Turek took in this debate. shameful, really.
I think that's the most I've ever seen Hitchens struggle with a question. Interesting.
An interesting conversation illustrated a connection between marriage and abortion. In discussing the personhood of the fetus in abortion, someone raised the question of why fetuses aren't claimed as a dependent for tax purposes if they are considered persons. Marriage is supposed to be that legal status, and the traditional purpose of marriage is primarily for children.
Once society dropped that focus in the marriage and emphasizes instead sexuality and personal happiness, I'm not sure there is any democratic room for fetuses to be considered persons. Until a restructuring of the family unit and marriage can be reconciled with the law, I'm not sure pro-life has a chance at reality. Aborted.
If I came intending to buy Turek's book, he changed my mind
I LOVE CHRIST H. LOVE LOVE LOVE HIM
+Mya Dyer How can you be Christian and pro-choice? Sorry sister, but you should have enough time to reflect upon your murderous tendencies during your lengthened stay in purgatory, or hell, wherever you end up XD
He's pro-life, getover yourself.
This!! As a Christian, I'm sick that whoever said abortion is bad has to do with Christianity, some people gonna bring it out, but now Hitchens, as an atheist, show that it doesn't have to do with religion. In simple terms hitchens believe abortion is necessary, but not as a choice. This might trigger both side of the fanatics pro life and pro choice.
God bless you.
4:43 "The presumption is that the unborn entity has a right on it's side and that every effort should be made to see if it can be preserved." In my opinion, that sounds like a very pro-life statement. All-in-all, it seems that Chris is very nuanced when it comes to the issue of abortion if not has a slight pro-life leaning. This is really one of the biggest reasons why I respect Hitchens.
Zack Edwards He doesn't have a pro life leaning, he stated many times that the rights of the woman come first. That is an extremely pro choice view.
The Dark Conservatarian yeah but he was more pro choice
He has said fetuses are alive but the woman’s rights come first
@@keyan1219 well, at least that's not a denial of biology. As I've come across more extreme pro-choicers who've said fetuses are literally not alive and not human.
The Dark Conservatarian tbf I wouldn’t say they aren’t alive but they aren’t like fully human
It’s pretty stupid to say they aren’t alive but they aren’t fully human either
A more sensible one would to say they are alive and have potential for human so they kind of pretty close
Something like an embryo is pretty different though
It's an extremely simple process. If you don't agree withe a person having the right, the means or the opportunity to have a safe and medically sound abortion, simply do not have one.
Sorry but to say just not to do something if you don't agree is the same moral claim that . if you dont like , stealing , killing(abortion) , rape, ext dont do it this makes no logical sense.
Abortion is for a fact the killing of another innocent human being and how can we allow this to happen?
***** Abortion is not killing an innocent human being. It's a medical procedure that terminates an unwanted foetus, safely. Worlds apart. Funny you mention rape, should a victim of rape be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy if she wishes to terminate it?
You don't have to 'allow this to happen', just don't have one. Nobody will make you, ever.
Em Eff You have to love the wording to sugar coat the reality of abortion. ''terminate' means killing of the fetus and the fetus is a living human being.
So lets please not use words to avoid the reality of what you mean by terminate. Go look up how they ''terminate'' a pregnancy and they kill this human being .
Now to say don't have a abortion meaning don't kill another innocent person is like saying if you don't believe in stealing, rape, robbery then don't do it but allow people to do it, The reality is abortion is KILLING ANOTHER INNOCENT HUMAN BEING. This is fact.
A women who was raped and pregnant (btw) most cases of pregnancy are not from rape. So ill answer your question and i hope you answer mine after. If a women was raped and got pregnant its a horrible thing but i do not believe killing another innocent human being makes anything better . Killing someone else for someone elses action is not okay. How can we kill another innocent human being?
A women is killed and she was pregnant is it okay for the law to charge this person with 2 counts of murder?
Now how can someone get charged with 2 counts of murder of they did not kill 2 lives? But when a women has a abortion and kills her child this is not murder its a choice? Do you see the problem with this example? Now murder is murder no matter who kills this innocent human being. correct?
Hamar Fox Actually it is very relevant because of this simple issue. such a moral issue of killing innocent human being is absolutely wrong. Now many people fool themselves into thinking that it is not killing of a innocent human being but all the evidence proves that the unborn are indeed. So how the stance of fighting for something so very immoral it makes perfect sense.
So please tell me how people ignore tha fact of how immoral a issue is and yet say its immoral?
Hamar Fox oh my bad
I miss that man. Where are the Christopher Hitchens of the world. Could really need one right now.
I like how them thar Holy Rollers take to making themselves all hastily and ad hoc "intellectual" and "logical" and such after they've been so long discredited and righteously mocked for their utter lack of facts. They defend their Grimm's Fairy Tales as "fact" with the utmost seriousness and wit. If they were true believers, then their charisma should be enough to change the world...instead of needing to defend their silly views of the cosmos.
Abortions should be free on request. The decision to abort is solely the right of the mother (not the father), with perhaps some deliberation with a competent doctor. Why would anyone want a child brought into the world that will not be loved and cared for?
Abortion laws are strictly a religious form of CONTROL.
Try Thinking For a change you cannot be this brainwashed
A corpse has more rights to their body than a woman, even in the US. In most countries, women have far fewer rights than a corpse. A potential human who does not have my permission to use my body, cannot use my body. Unless my body belongs to the government (something conservatives and/or men would abhor if it were applied to them), the only conclusion is that my body belongs to me, and is mine to share or not share. No one can force me to donate blood or organs to save any complete human; why should I then have to share my body with someone who isn't even aware and isn't even a person?
BECAUSE YOU PUT IT THERE. It's not the fetus's fault that he is in your body, and, from the sounds of it, if he had any choice in the matter he probably would have sought an alternative residence.
What are you saying about corpses? I don't understand, but it sounds very stupid
No, all she did was have sex. Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy, and all embryoes/foetuses that may have formed as a result of sex take their chances just like any'one' else. Pregnancy is not a conscious choice. The selfish gene takes every opportunity it can to reproduce itself. An unwanted pregnancy is exactly the same as no pregnancy, unless you want to be punitive towards the female, which seems to be your agenda.
Your vision of utopia, in which actions can be entirely separated from their (foreseeable, avoidable) consequences, is devoid of both reality and morality.
j tucker What I'm saying about corpses is, in the US, a corpse cannot be used for any medical or scientific purpose like organ donation unless that person signed themselves over. So, if a dead person doesn't have to donate their organs, why do I have to donate my body? Babies come from sex, BUT it's a big assumption on your part to assume I wasn't raped and that I wasn't using birth control when I became pregnant. In fact, it's invasive, crass, and disgusting on your part to invade someones life the way you clearly do. And if men have no legal obligation to stick around for a pregnancy or a child, I don't either.
You know what kept men around? Marriage--too bad the left undermined it. The idea that you should be able to dismember a fetus (baby) up to the point of its birth is medieval and ghoulish, and nothing but a sublimation of the age old impulse towards infanticide. I want nothing to do with your body, believe me--but I don't believe that the fetus is your body.
I believe what Christopher Hitchens was trying to articulate here is a concept that so many Americans have difficulty with because abortion is such a polarizing subject. At some point between conception and birth a human being is created that deserves the full protection of the law. That point can't be right after conception and it can't be right before birth. The pro-life side wants to always push that point back, and the pro-choice side wants to push that point forward. But scientists know relatively well where in a pregnancy fetal brain development is to the point where we could consider a living thing "human."
Eric van Bezooijen That point should be recognised as the moment the fetus gains consciousness and can feel pain.
Sirsodomite Ratter Is unconscious person not a human then, by that criteria?
standev1
Yes of course an unconscious person is a human being. I'm surprised that really required an answer.
Sirsodomite Ratter So you have to find another criteria.
standev1
Not really as an unconscious person has already gained consciousness and can feel pain.
Isn't that interesting.We have 21 century. So many great achievements in science. We consider ourselves as a inteligent creatures and yet we have discussions like this - about religious dogma and morality. Just saying.
"In order to experience the holy spirit you must first have faith."
So I have to believe in something first before I can be given any reason to believe in that thing?
Why would you need the holy spirit to reveal itself if you already believe in the proposition? If evidence is wholly worthless when deciding to adopt the belief, why hope for any conformation when there is no need to know?
It seems to me this idea would only appeal the credulous and those unaware of confirmation bias.
evidence is wholly worth when deciding to adopt the belief, and thus your conclusion does not follow
I love Hitch, but it can't be denied that he does dodge the occasional question. Why didn't he mention the fact that equating an early stage fetus to a human life is at best a misinformed opinion, or the fact that there are in many cases so many factors other than just whether or not the potential parents-to-be wish to have a child?
Just like his opponent in this debate, you're not listening.
shut the fuck up kid... you didn't get ANY of this shit... get lost before I slap your ass
Гальванизированный Труп What a mature comment, please allow me time to soak up all the nuances of your informed opinions.
Гальванизированный Труп Hold up, I haven't yet had time to process the intelligence oozing from your previous comment.
Гальванизированный Труп I...I don't know what those are. Apart from maybe tiny penises.
The question requires understanding personhood and when it arises.
I find it very irritating and even churlish when people go for character assassinations in debates. It forces the other side to defend themselves and thereby recognize (falsely) that their character has bearing on the meaning, the truth and the logic of their words (which it obviously doesn't), or forces the other side to look evasive while they scramble to reframe the challenge so that it can be unambiguously tackled.
If you're intellectually honest, you can only state with conviction beliefs that you have really thought about. Just look at the tactics. Sadly, we often feel if someone stops to think, they're being evasive, even when we've told them to think. This has it's place, but not when we've gathered to hear thinkers! Could you imagine if you told anyone that to change their mind or actually think on a statement or challenge in a debate that they'd lose points for it? But they do. Points in terms of respect, thereby in terms of peoples receptivity to their ideas. Watching Hitchens struggle to keep up the flow of words whilst attempting to unravel all the ways in which Turek's question was loaded, and twisted, brought me such contempt for Turek. Turek isn't interested in being right at this point, however he started the debate. He's just interested in winning.
There has always been that horrible idea of the last man standing being right. History is written by the victors. Might is Right. That you can stand triumphant on the bleeding corpse of your foes and shout to the heavens "I have championed your honor! You have won!"; I can see now that it hasn't been so much left in hour childish infancy, but has simply relocated with the battlefield from war zone to the debate hall.
Anyone who notices that my own arguments are as close to a character assassination as to require a second glance - well, now you understand why Hitchens didn't say it himself.
Love Hitch
Pro Choice
But this is the least good answer I've ever seen him give
Because the answer doesnt fit you
Thats why
A rather convoluted answer from the normally erudite Mr Hitchens. I don't know who he was trying to appease here. Obviously in 2 minds about the abortion issue. All I know is, the issue is not about viable/unviable pregnancies, it is about pregnancy. No woman who hasn't consented to being pregnant should not be forced to continue being pregnant. Consent is the keyword here. A foetus does not have special rights to a woman's body, just like a 2yr old doesn't, or an 80 year old doesn't, without that woman's consent. People can't just help themselves to other people's bodies, so why should a foetus be able to? Given the constant assertion that a foetus is already a human being, the same rules should apply.
+Julie Paterson Oops, that should read 'should be forced to continue being pregnant'. One too many nots.
+Julie Paterson I agree with hitchens when he says I see the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society. remember it takes two people to make a child and I find wrong that the potential father has no say although I do agree the female should make the final decision because it is her giving birth.
you make the point people can't have rights over other peoples bodies so if you follow that logic you could also say the women has no right on the unborn child's body....
+GunsGifts Galleries The foetus wouldn't even exist without the woman's body. It has no rights. If it wasn't totally dependent I would agree with you. Maybe someday science will be able to take over from mother nature, and this distressing issue will disappear, but until then, it is a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body, including whether or not she wants to stay pregnant. It's her body, right? So it's her decision.
+Julie Paterson I think that's a very simple way of looking at it. abortion should be a very last resort and not another form of contraception. and I agree the women has rights over her own body obviously but I also think the father has rights and the potential child does too.
P.S.
When I say "pay" I mean the fetus paying with his or her life.
Freedoms are ethical only insofar as they don't force someone else to pay (in the fetus' case - with life lost).
For the first time ever, I question Christopher Hitchen's deployment of a word here, when he says "it's casuistry". Wouldn't casuistry, properly understood as a tool of ethical reasoning, require that one draws the moral distinction that Hitchens is arguing for, between terminating an ectopic pregnancy that is both a threat to the mother and not viable, and terminating e.g. a late term pregnancy which is viable and no threat to the mother? I know that the word casuistry is also sometimes used outside of the context of moral philosophy in a pejorative sense, to mean reasoning that sounds clever or complex but doesn't hold up. But this was an unfortunate choice of word when, in the field this debate occupies, the word denotes a method that not only supports Hitchens' case but which he was arguably using himself.
You don't get to use someone else's organs against their will.
Well said.
ELMtree2of2 We place plenty of restrictions on people's organs all the time, why should abortion be the exception?
Dario Colon Sounds like you need to restrict yours.
ELMtree2of2 I'm sorry, did my objection hurt your feelings?
If you have a contention, you could maybe try using counter-arguments like an actual adult
Dario Colon Actual adults are capable of restricting themselves.
Hitchens stepped all around the question with his stellar intellect to avoid the answer. He did interject, with slight out of context, during his pontificating discourse, the word "nonviable" so that he could pacify the atheistic pro aborts but still not be held accountable to any astute argument for the sanctity of the unborn and right to life. The man was just to doggone intelligent. I appreciate and enjoy his brilliant mind and I am grateful he had the freedom to express his views. But, Christ is to be accepted with the heart. And it is the heart with the Wisdom of God that truly enlightens the mind. I have faith that in the last moments of Christopher Hitchens' life, even after his last words, Christ with His Love and keys to death and hell visited this man to redeem him .. .God IS Love.
I didn't understand the question the other guy was posing why can't god kill but a mother having a child who's birth could possibly kill both or one of them can't? I hope that wasn't it because there's an obvious difference between chosing to get an abortion,for health reasons and choosing to murder a tribe and all their children.
Why is genocide morally outrageous?
Is that a serious question?
Ichabodcrane21 It's a legitimate question.
Ok I'm just use to people asking questions to make a failed point genocide is wrong because you're killing en mass with the intent of wiping out a group of people for selfish/ political/ or religious reasoning behind it. There's more to it than that but that's all I need.
Excellent obfuscation, Chris!
Like Alpert Einstein said in his "God letter": All religions are the incarnation of the most childish superstition.